Peabody Trust (202410474)

Background

1. The resident lives alone in a 2 bed third floor flat. In 2023, the landlord placed the resident in temporary accommodation following a leak. Her solicitor has represented her and liaised with the landlord on her behalf throughout the timeline of the complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for rehousing following a leak.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing following a leak.
   2. An offer of reasonable redress made by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord failed to properly manage the resident’s request for rehousing. It did not use its complaint handling effectively to put things right for the resident.
5. The landlord’s poor communication with the resident, her solicitor, and internally, contributed to substantial delays and uncertainty.
6. The landlord recognised that it failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint and respond in accordance with its policy. Its offer of compensation was a reasonable means to put things right for the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident sought permanent rehousing prior to the reported flood in May 2023. We have not considered the requests prior to the landlord’s decision to temporarily move (decant) the resident in May 2023. We have considered the landlord’s handling of the decant and her request for rehousing following the leak in May 2023.
8. We recognise that as a resolution to this complaint the resident wants the landlord to rehouse her. In accordance with our Scheme, we will not make orders that will compel the landlord to act in a way that could adversely affect other individuals. This includes requiring it to offer the resident a particular property. However, we will consider if the landlord correctly applied its rehousing policy and appropriately assisted the resident with her request. We will also consider if the landlord’s offers of compensation were reasonable and if its actions within its complaint responses put things right for the resident.
9. During the timeline of this complaint, the landlord’s decants policy listed the circumstances where it will move a household to alternative accommodation. This included floods that cause a property to be uninhabitable and where it cannot do extensive works with a resident in their home.
10. The landlord’s decant policy also says that it will make 2 formal offers of accommodation when moving a resident permanently. It will make 1 offer when moving a resident temporarily. Sometimes the alternative accommodation it offers will be a hotel. If emergency works take longer than anticipated, it may cancel the hotel booking and offer alternative suitable temporary accommodation.
11. The resident told the landlord that a sewage leak from the flat above flooded her property on 30 May 2023. The landlord did not inspect the property at the time of the report. Instead, it reasonably accepted the resident’s advice and acted immediately. It appropriately applied its decant policy and placed the resident in temporary accommodation. This initial response was reasonable and reflected the urgency of the resident’s report.
12. The landlord’s decant policy says the resident should not be able to access their home while works are in progress. It is therefore unclear why the resident retained keys to the property and needed to provide access to the landlord and its contractors in June 2023. It should have applied its policy at the time and not required the resident to arrange access once she moved into emergency accommodation. This oversight contributed to the landlord’s later delays handling repairs and organising inspections.
13. In June 2023 the landlord and resident’s solicitors exchanged emails. The landlord said that it would identify suitable alternative housing based on the information provided by the resident. It would not give a timescale to provide alternative accommodation and advised that the resident may need to return to the property pending a move. It was reasonably clear in its communication and set expectations that rehousing is dependent on stock and availability.
14. However, the landlord failed to apply its rehousing policy to the resident’s application. Its emails were not clear on how it would make offers of accommodation. It did not say if it awarded the resident priority on its housing register, if she would have to ‘bid’ herself, or if the landlord would make direct offers of accommodation. This was a failing and caused the resident considerable distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
15. The landlord’s rehousing policy in 2023 said that it awarded the highest priority to residents who it had decanted. It said that it would review those applicants in its highest priority band 6 months after approval and every subsequent 3 months. There was no evidence available to the Ombudsman that the landlord awarded its band A1 or A2 priority in 2023. There were no records showing that it reviewed her application prior to the resident’s complaints in April 2024, which was more than 9 months after the emergency application. This was a failing.
16. The landlord failed to retain proper oversight of the resident’s temporary accommodation. The resident’s solicitor frequently sought updates from it about the plans to move her and problems with her hotel stays. Between July 2023 and April 2024, her solicitor wrote to the landlord 14 times asking for updates. The landlord gave 2 short replies in December 2023 and February 2024. It did not provide sufficient clarity to show it was progressing the resident’s request for permanent rehousing or acting to repair the property for her return. These failures caused the resident further distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
17. At the time of her first complaint to the landlord, the resident had been in temporary hotel accommodation for around 11 months. This was an unreasonable period to be in hotel accommodation and would have caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience, particularly given the reports of sometimes short notice arrangements.
18. Despite the resident’s complaint in April 2024, the landlord did not improve its communication. The resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord 10 times asking for updates on the complaint and the repairs to the property. The landlord replied once in June and twice in August 2024. The continued communication failures contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
19. In its stage 1 response in August 2024, the landlord accepted some of its failures. It recognised that it had failed to effectively communicate and had not correctly manged the rehousing request or the temporary accommodation. It appropriately apologised for some of its communication failures. It was reasonable to provide the resident with assistance with her request for rehousing.
20. However, it unreasonably attributed some delays to the COVID-19 pandemic. It had incorrectly treated her rehousing request separate to her decant and did not fully acknowledge its failures to communicate her housing options. It introduced the need for the resident to ‘bid’ on properties, despite not discussing this with the resident or her solicitor previously. It was unfair to suggest that some of the communication failures were because there were times the resident’s solicitor had been slow to respond.
21. At the time of the stage 1 response, the resident had been in temporary or hotel accommodation for around 14 months. She inevitably experienced significant distress and inconvenience by being away from a home for so long and the uncertainty about her future living arrangements. The landlord’s compensation offer of £100 for lack of communication and £120 for distress and inconvenience did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident.
22. In its December 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately apologised for the confusion caused by its changing rehousing policy. It provided more detail on how it processed her request for rehousing. It was reasonable to arrange for its rehousing team to contact her and discuss the change of process. It was clear in its expectation that she would return to the property as it had completed the repairs. It sought to manage her expectations and explained the shortage of available accommodation in the area.
23. However, the landlord did not use its stage 2 response to fully address its failings across the timeline. It decided that the property was ready for her to return in August 2024 but had not offered reassurance the property was fit to return to. It did not fully consider the resident’s time and trouble chasing updates from the landlord or address the comments made at stage 1 about communication with her solicitor. Its further offer of £150 compensation for impact, not managing her rehousing request, and lack of communication did not reflect the detriment caused.
24. We accept that the resident did not want to return and had refused the landlord’s requests. However, her solicitor asked the landlord to schedule an independent survey to agree the repairs were complete. It did not do so until around July 2025. There were considerable periods of delay in the meantime that were the result of the landlord’s poor communication.
25. We find maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing following a leak. During the complaint timeline, the landlord moved the resident frequently between hotels and other temporary accommodation. The landlord made no offers of alternative permanent accommodation or evidenced that it was making efforts to do so for much of the timeline. The resident clearly stated that she wanted the landlord to speak to her solicitor about the situation on her behalf. The landlord did not always follow these instructions and it is unclear if it recorded these requests accurately or shared them with officers who contacted the resident.
26. The landlord should pay the resident £1,000 compensation. This is in line with our Guidance on Remedies for failings that had a significant impact on the resident.

27. The landlord’s complaint handling policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue its responses at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. It is important that it maintains these complaint handling commitments. The landlord’s responses at stage 1 and 2 were both issued outside of these timescales.
28. The resident first complained through her solicitor on 19 April 2024. The landlord did not appropriately acknowledge this complaint. Its legal team said that it would provide up to date instructions and respond to matters raised in the complaint in an email on 23 May 2024. It said that it would need an additional week to respond but only did so after further requests from the resident’s solicitor on 10 June 2024. It still did not properly acknowledge or respond to the complaint. These failures to properly record the resident’s complaint and issue a response caused her time and trouble.
29. The resident also took additional time and trouble seeking our help in August 2024 as the landlord’s delays continued.
30. The landlord issued its stage 1 response around 4 months after the complaint, on 30 August 2024. Although this was an unreasonable delay, the landlord appropriately apologised for the complaint handling failures in its stage 1 response. It explained that it had made errors when handling the complaint through its legal services. It accepted the failures and awarded £130 compensation.
31. The resident’s solicitor sought to escalate the complaint on 31 August 2024. There was then a further unreasonable delay of more than 2 months working days before it issued the stage 2 response on 10 December 2024. The landlord appropriately apologised again for its complaint handling failures and poor customer service in its stage 2 response. It offered £250 compensation for the delays at stage 1 and stage 2. This represents the higher end of compensation awards for complaint handling in our Guidance on Remedies. Its offer was therefore proportionate.
32. The Ombudsman finds the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the complaint. It accepted its failings at stage 1 and 2. It made reasonable offers of compensation to put things right for the resident. It is important that the landlord learns from its complaint handling failures. When unaddressed, these unreasonable delays to acknowledge and respond to complaints can contribute to a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship.

Learning

Complaint handling

33. The landlord should ensure that all service areas are familiar with its complaint handling procedures. The failure to assign the resident’s stage 1 complaint in April 2024 contributed to the significant delays demonstrated throughout the timeline.

Temporary moves

34. When decanting a resident, the landlord should promptly inspect the property and share its action plan to complete the repairs with the resident. It should be clear as soon as possible whether it will move the resident and how this will happen. It should retain better oversight of its ongoing decants. The failures to properly manage the resident’s rehousing application and repairs to the property in this case have caused the landlord substantial costs for temporary accommodation.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord kept reasonably accurate records of its communication with the resident’s solicitor. However, there were no clear records of its calls to the resident or how it was managing her application for rehousing.
36. The resident needed the support of her solicitor and was clear in all communication available to the Ombudsman that this was her preferred contact method. Despite these requests, there were instances where the landlord contacted her directly and kept no proper notes of those conversations. The landlord should have systems in place to consider the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments in this way.

Communication

37. The primary driving factor for the failures in this case resulted from poor communication. There were considerable delays caused by poor communication from the landlord’s legal services team to the resident’s solicitor. The solicitor frequently emailed the landlord seeking updates and expressing the resident’s wishes to move. The landlord should have been clearer early in these communications on how it planned to action the rehousing request and complete repairs.